Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071290 Min Ag Packet .......~...City of Port Townsel Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385.3000 . . Meeting of July 12, 1990 I. Roll Call Chairman Ron Kosec called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Other members present were Alan Carman, Sally McDole, Lois Sherwood, and Bob Grimm. Also present were staff planners Rick Sepler and Dave Robison as well as Michael Hildt, Planning and Building Director. II. Reading and Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting Lois Sherwood moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 28, 1990. Alan Carman seconded and all were in favor. 4IÞ III. Communications Michael Hildt introduced Planning and Building Assistant Tammy Quinn to the commission. Mail received will be presented at the time of the related public hearings. IV. Old Business A. Conditional Use Permit 8912-07, Douglass & Nancy Lamy - continued Michael Hildt reviewed the effect of Ordinance 2192 on the Lamy project. Michael Hildt presented the new plans submitted by applicant which included a proposed hotel with retail space. Mr Hildt stated that the scope of the project seems to be continually changing. Mr. Lamy may delete the retail space as shown on the first plans, and may use the units for condo development. Discussion followed on how Ordinance 2192 effects the revised plans. Mr. Hildt stated that the Interim Control Ordinance must be met before City Council can approve projects within this area. e The Commission discussed the parking changes between the original proposal and the current proposal. :r",,"~ ¡, .. . " -- e e . e Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 1990 Page ¡.. ofl Michael Hildt recòmmended continuation of the application to allow for a thorough analysis of the project. Mr. Lamy stated his feeling that his proposal met all the criteria for the Waterfront Interim Control Ordinance. Ron Kosec presented the current application dated January 2, 1990 submitted by Mr. Lamy. He attempted to summarize the project. Sally McDole stated that she felt no decision could be made on the application do to the lack of a concrete proposal. B. Public Testimony David Dover stated he had an interest in the interim control ordinance and the outcome of the process to establish regulations for the district. Mr. Kosec closed public testimony C. Committee Report Sally McDole stated that an application should reflect the project for which the applicant is applying for and the Lamy application did not do this. Mr. Carman said that in his opinion the commission could review the application conceptually at this time. Mr. Carman suggested that the Council could later review the application contingent upon the determinations of legal council and staff reports. There was some discussion regarding the appropriateness of continuing the hearing to another date based upon the lack of specific parking information for the project and legal requirements concerning condominiums. commission members discussed whether a decision based on the submitted information would be in conflict with past procedures. Specifically, the Commission felt additional information was needed regarding parking and the scope of the project. Lois Sherwood stated that it was necessary to know what the primary use of the proposed project would be. She stated that hotels and condominiums have different criteria for review. Ms. McDole said she was uncomfortable with the paperwork as it existed, but Mr. Carman said he felt he could proceed with the application at this time. Mr. Carman stated that the project conceptually already exists and the crux of the project will not change a great deal. ~. ~ . ~ e e e . e Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 1990 Page 3 of 7 Referencing Draft A dated March 8, Mr. Carman moved to revise the draft to reflect Mr. Lamy's proposal, as submitted just prior to this evening's meeting, changing the draft to include a 6-unit building, 42-foot height. Doug Lamy read the design criteria from the waterfront workbook. Mr. Hildt stated that the Interim Control Ordinance currently in affect does not allow condos or hotels at this time on this particular site. The members discussed a date for continuing the hearing. The next regular Planning Commission Meeting will be on August 30, 1990. The Commission noted that Mr. Lamy may change his plans after the outcome of Ordinance 2192 (Interim Control ordinance) is known. Mr. Grimm moved to continue application 8912-07 Douglass and Nancy Lamy to August 30, 1990. Ms. McDole seconded and all were in favor. Mr. Hildt asked Chairman Kosec to clarify what would be required of the applicant prior to the meeting of August 30, 1990. The applicant must submit prior to August 15, 1990, an amended application and new plans revised as to the scope of the proposed project. This will allow sufficient time for a new staff report. All members of the Commission agreed that this would be appropriate. B. Variance Application 9005-01, Jean Anderson 1. staff Report Mr. sepler reviewed the Findings and Conclusions drafted for the application. Two recommendations were drafted: Draft A recommends denial while Draft B recommends approval with conditions. The applicant proposes to construct an enclosed addition to her home at 634 clay street. The applicant also proposes to construct a 6-foot high lattice fence that will front Clay and Quincy streets. The applicant's property is on a corner lot and therefore must meet the 20 foot setback for 6-foot fences on both streets. The variance is to permit a 0 setback on the section of the fence that faces Quincy Street. The fence would consist of the equivalent of a 66% open rail fence, the fence would be 6 feet high with the bottom four feet lattice. The fence is intended to enclose a private patio area. This variance is in part to facilitate relocation of a fireplace and the applicant would like to construct an enclosed addition to .. . # e e e - e Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 1990 Page 4 of 7 the rear of the house, making the rear setback of the building 11 feet and 8 inches. This addition as proposed would require a variance. 2. Public Testimony Jean Anderson, applicant, stated that she was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. She stated there are other places to relocate the chimney, but aesthetics are a concern. She distributed pictures to the Commission of the subject property and the proposed location of the fence. The applicant stated that the fencing would allow privacy. She stated that an open rail fence would not be consistent with the aesthetics of the victorian House. Some discussion followed regarding the submitted photos. Public testimony was closed. 3.Committee report Alan Carman stated the house was indeed victorian and that he would be in favor of Draft B, but the fence and variance criteria do not allow the proposed fence. Discussion followed pertaining to criteria of split rail fences, the Commission referred to the zoning code. The Commission determined that the house addition would meet the criteria of a variance, but the fence does not seem to fit the variance criteria. Mr. Grimm moved to adopt Draft B of the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of variance application, 9005-01, Jean Anderson, modifying the conditions to allow the fence, if constructed as a rail fence, to be four and one-half feet in height. Mr. Carman seconded and all were in favor. C. Variance application 9005-07, Gary & Mary Kaiser- continued A letter from Pete Raab outlining the Historic Preservation Commission's approval of the proposed project was distributed. The Commission discussed the reason for continuation of the application and recalled that there were uncertainties about the applicant meeting parking requirements. 1. Staff Report Dave Robison reviewed both Drafts of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. The applicants propose to construct a 6,000 square II ... e e e . . e Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 1990 Page 5 of 7 foot commercial building on Water street between the Green Eyeshade and the Alaska Power Building. The applicants are requesting a variance from the parking requirements. Draft A recommends the denial of the variance while Draft B recommends approval with conditions. 2. Public Testimony Gary Kaiser stated that he has complied with all conditions from the environmental review and the Historic Preservation commission. He has obtained a Mitigated DNS and the Historic Preservation Commission reduced the parking requirements from 14 to 9 under the Historic building provision. Mr. Kaiser distributed plans to the Commission. Mr. Kaiser stated that final configurations were not complete at the last meeting, and that the plans being distributed were the final design. The applicant stated that three parking spaces will be leased from SeaFirst Bank located behind the proposed property. Mr. Kaiser read a letter from SeaFirst confirming the lease of three parking spaces. Mr. Kaiser stated that in his opinion joint use requirements are not possible downtown, because no night time uses are in the area. Also Mr. Kaiser felt "Fee In Lieu" of parking would not be feasible for the project. He stated he is asking for a variance from six parking spaces as he has secured three from SeaFirst and is only required to supply nine. Some discussion followed over the use of the proposed building and its affect on local and tourist business. The Commission also discussed the current demands for existing parking including tenants. The party wall between the Alaska Power Building and the proposed building will not be used as anything structural. The applicant has a party wall agreement. Public Testimony was closed. 3. Committee Report Lois Sherwood stated the commission must weigh the need for parking against the attractiveness of the proposed project. Any decision may set a precedent. The Planning Commission discussed that it would not always be possible to require on site parking for the downtown corridor. The design of the project seems fitting to the community. Parking options available to the applicant were discussed. Mr. Kaiser stated that the project was a conforming use with the , " , ' . . .... e e e - e Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 1990 Page 6 of 7 exception of parking. He also stated that the project was an appropriate use and scope in relation to the site, and that the commission must weigh the trade-off between tbe appropriateness of the building with the strict conformance with the parking requirements. Discussion followed regarding the limits of the historic district. Ms. Jessie Dover stated she is a longtime resident of Port Townsend and feels the impact of parking needs. She is in favor of positive projects but feels the Commission has a responsibility to citizens to retain necessary parking. Lois Sherwood moved to recommend to City Council Draft B of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions 9005-07, Mary and Gary Kaiser, with revisions to reflect changes to the requirement of 9 off- street parking spaces. The motion was seconded by Ms. McDole. Discussion. The Commission discussed the reasons for the denial of the variance from parking. Ms. Sherwood stated that the SeaFirst letter seemed to infer that the Kaisers should provide some parking, and that the "fee in lieu" charge is not a major percentage of the financial scope of the project. Mr. Grimm stated that this variance will set a precedent and it may be best addressed by the City Council. All members voted in favor of the motion to recommend draft B. V. New Business 1. Jeff Porter Short Plat Application 9002-05 was scheduled for August 30, 1990 with Tavernakis and Erickson on Committee. Porter applied to the city under the Summary Short Plat process and was denied and remanded to the Commission for further review and consideration. VI. Announcements Next Scheduled Meetings August 16, 1990 - Draft Ordinance sign Code Workshop August 30, 1990 Lamy Conditional Use Permit continued. Porter Short Plat $..... ." l. . " ,~,.. . . Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 1990 e Page 7 of 6 The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Tammy Quinn Planning and Building Assistant e e - -··~tity of Port Townsel Planning Commission 540 Water St., Port Townsend, WA 98368 206/385.3000 e ----z) e e e A.GENDA (Revised) Regular Meeting July 12, 1990 1. ROLL CALL ------------------------------------------- 7:30 P.M. 2. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 3. COMMUNICATIONS: a. current mail 4. OLD BUSINESS: a. 07 Conditional Use Permit, 8912-0', Douglass and Nancy Lamy, continued T ~Á. +0 ~1 3D 1. Staff Review 2. Public Testimony A\ \ \" \=-A.'10f' 3. Committee Report - (MCDole/Carman) 4. Findings and Conclusions b. Variance Appl., 9005-01, Jean Anderson R . b'\k.ç~ ~ ~J 4· s S'+ 1. Staff eVlew \/1 O.ÁOI",(^ \. ., \ ~ 2. Public Testimony , v- -ðv,,~ \ ~\.\.,.) (P.\ 1 <..JL. 3. Committee Report - (carman/Grimm) ^\\ r~A 1 4. Findings and Conclusions 'f"'í '- A... '\ fWOC c. Variance Appl. continued 9005-07, Mary and Gary Kaiser D\"-A.+ ..\- 1ß. 1. Staff Review 2. Public Testimony A (I /II {1w(JÝ 3. Committee Report - (Sherwood/Tavernakis) 4. Findings and Conclusìons 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. Short Plat Appl., 9002-05, Jeff Porter Scheduled: August 30, 1990 Committee: Tavernakis/Erickson . ~ .,.... 1(- ,..., . . e 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings: August 16, 1990 a. Draft ordinance sign Code Workshop 7. ADJOURN Av~ 3Q. LAM'i PD~-r£P- e e 1 .~..'.. . . . " e 1500 Lake Park Drive #8 Tumwater, Washington 98502 July 25, 1990 City of Port Townsend, Planning Commission Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Dear City Officials: I spent last weekend in Port Townsend. I was back for my eighth stay at the Palace Hotel. I did all my favorite things -- walked the waterfront at early morning, sat and read on "my" benches, wandered the shops, ate lots of good food. I left sunday afternoon both refreshed and concerned. I was discomforted by the two new hotels built close to the fishing, boat building area. I was unhappy to see the multi-story condominium being built on the water. I was dismayed to hear construction may occur where Texaco now stands. e I'm a tourist. I've been coming to your town for years, and taking advantage of all your city has to offer. I'm one of those for whom, supposedly, the new construction is under way. But, I'm a tourist who believes in the preservation of Port Townsend. My choice of lodging has always been the Palace, using a facility that fits into the character of the town. I've always assumed there would be room for only a maximum number of us "outsiders" to join the town for our vacations -- if all's filled up, we'd make our plans earlier, wait our turn. I do hope there's careful thought being given to the extent of building done. The character of the town is fragile -- it would be tragic to see it lost. It felt important you hear from one of the thousands of tourists coming to Port Townsend. Because I love the town as I do, I add my concern to residents who must surely be urging controlled growth. Sincerely, ~ e COPIED FOR COUNCIL f31\I~O , ! I e ~\Co~ \N. C2r\\ç~ \- .- ,.. tit 6tWv¡ l~~ \C~ '. {(CLt~ JCLv>.~1.d- O'ftf· e e